

r 






LIEUT. M. F. MAURY. 



SPEECH 



OP 



M. JOHN BELL, OF TENNESSEE, 



ON THE 



NAVAL RETIRING BOARD; 



iLIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 28 and 29, 1856. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1856. 






NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. 



The Senate having resumed the consideration of the res- 
olutions submitted by Mr. Iverson, on the 29th of February, 
for the appointment of a special committee to investigate 
the action of the late Naval Board- 
Mr. BELL, of Tennessee, said: I do not pro- 
pose, on this occasion, to enter into the general 
question as to the legality and propriety of the 
proceedings of the naval board. My object in 
asking the honorable Senator from North Caro- 
lina to give me precedence in making any remarks 
which I thought proper to submit at this time, 
was, that I might speak in reference to an isolated 
point — the case of Lieutenant Maury, which 
appeared to me to have obtained a prominence, 
especially by the course of my friend, the honor- 
able Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton,] 
which required some particular attention from me. 
The consideration of the more general questions 
connected with this subject I desire to defer until 
the bill reported by the Committee on Naval Af- 
fairs shall come up, when I propose, with the 
assent of the Senate, to express my views on these 
questions. 

I have to regret that I do not see the honorable 
Senator from Delaware in his place ; for although 
I propose to make no remarks which could at all 
be considered personal in relation to the course 
pursued by that honorable Senator, it would be 
greatly more satisfactory to me if he were present, 
that he might hear everything I have to say, and 
might interpose his corrections or objections, if 
he found occasion to do so. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. I heard from him on 
Friday last, that on Saturday he would go to 
Philadelphia to place himself under the care of a 
physician there. 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. It would be much 
more agreeable to me if 1 could defer my remarks 
in relation to the argument submitted by that 
honorable Senator until he could be present. I 
will ask my friend from Kentucky if he expressed 
an expectation that he could be here in any short 
ti me ? 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Not at all; he does not 
know when he will be able to be here. 



Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. That fact only 
imposes on me the greater necessity to be cautious 
in anything that I shall say, and to forbear any 
sentiment or expression which can be considered 
offensive to that honorable Senator. 

Mr. President, when the proceedings of the 
naval board were announced to the public, noth- 
ing that was done by the board created greater 
surprise than that Lieutenant Maury had been 
dropped from the active-service list, and put out 
of the line of promotion. General astonishment 
was felt that the board should have considered 
it their duty, under the law, thus to deal with an 
officer who had been so generally — not to say 
universally — regarded as one of the ornaments 
of the naval profession. Such an announcement 
was well calculated to excite general attention, 
and inquiry into the causes which had led to the 
removal from the active list of an officer of the 
Navy who stood so high, not only with his own 
countrymen, but with the enlightened of every 
country. Except the case of Commodore Stewart, 
Lieutenant Maury's retirement by the decree of 
that board attracted greater interest than that of 
any other officer of the Navy. The honorable 
Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mallory,] I perceive, 
assents to the truth of this statement. 

The prominence thus awarded by the public to 
Lieutenant Maury placed him in a very peculiar 
and, I may say, in a somewhat hazardous posi- 
tion; for all those who felt, that the public inter- 
est required that the action of the Board should 
be sustained, saw at once that the finding of the 
board consigning Lieutenant Maury to the ab- 
sence-leave list, and excluding him from any 
higher rank in the Navy, required explanation, 
required defense, required justification. Hence 
you will see, Mr. President, that every defender 
of the proceedings of the naval board, and all 
those who desired to sustain its action, were deep- 
ly concerned in showing to the public that the 
finding of the board in Lieutenant Maury's case 
was correct, well founded, and vindicated by the 
true circumstances of his case. 

I am sorry, sir', on some accounts, that Lieuten- 



ant Maury has been placed in that particular atti- 
tude and category in relation to the proceedings 
of the board and their defenders; for, though he 
can be successfully and triumphantly vindicated 
against every imputation which has been, or may 
be, cast upon his personal or professional honor, 
or his official competency, his position has ex- 
posed him to powerful animosities and resent- 
ments, and called forth a course of remark and 
attack from gentlemen of high standing that but 
few men in the country can regard with uncon- 
cern. Lieutenant Maury stands in such a position 
in relation to the proceedings of the naval board, 
that, if the decision in regard to him cannot be 
successfully vindicated, they, or the members of 
the board, are in danger of suffering some dimin- 
ution of the public confidence reposed in them, 
and cannot expect to be fully supported by public 
sentiment, or a vote of Congress. The attitude 
of Lieutenant Maury is a perilous one for any 
public officer to be placed in. When I presented 
his memorial to the Senate, Mr. President, I was 
aware of its character; I regarded it as the em- 
anation of a mind deeply mortified, and indignant 
that he should have received at the hands of the 
naval board the sentence of incompetency, placed 
on the leave-of-absence list, and denied the priv- 
ilege of future promotion. He had the feelings 
that were natural to every man of sensibility and 
honor. He had not expected such a sentence any 
more than the public generally. It was impos- 
sible to restrain, or suppress altogether the indig- 
nant, and, if you please, the somewhat resentful 
expression of feeling natural to every man in his 
position. Who can conceive that such a man 
could have had any other feelings than such as 
I have described? Who can suppose that any 
friend, or any counsel, any cautious adviser, 
could have subdued the indignant tone ,of senti- 
ment which he expressed on the occasion. 

If I shall appear, in the opinion of Senators, 
at any time to be over zealous in the interest I 
manifest in behalf of Lieutenant Maury, I beg 
them to remember that when he was appointed 
midshipman in the Navy he hailed from Tennes- 
see. I knew his family; they were of Huguenot 
descent. Their principles drove them from 
France and brought them to this country. Sev- 
eral branches of the family in Tennessee had been 
my early friends, and it was impossible that I 
should not take a lively interest in his fortunes. 

When I presented the memorial of Lieutenant 
Maury in the Senate, I found that my honorable 
friend from Florida [Mr. Mallory] was well 
prepared for its reception. I announced my sent- 
iments frankly and freely on that occasion. I 
stated my opinion on the course of the board in 
relation to Lieutenant Maury — that they had 
made a mistake and done him great injustice. 
My honorable friend was prompt to reply. As 
soon as I had concluded, he rose in his place, and 
declared his conviction that, if the board had 
erred in any case whatever, there was no error in 
the case of Lieutenant Maury. This showed 
that my honorable friend was well skilled in the 
art of fence. My honorable friend remembers it 
well. He went on to fortify his position and as- 
sertion by statements and references to facts and 



documents which showed preparation, and that 
he was not destitute of plausible grounds in taking 
the position which he assumed. 

But my honorable friend forbore to go into 
offensive particulars or details. He stated gen- 
erally that, although he did not intend to say on 
what grounds the board had acted in retiring 
Lieutenant Maury, he could perceive that it had 
ample grounds to justify its course. One, and 
the principal one, was the alleged physical dis- 
ability of Lieutenant Maury. He further main- 
tained that he had shunned sea service. He said 
that the sea was a jealous mistress, and required 
that those who expected to gather trophies in her 
service should be assiduous and devotional in 
their attentions. 

I shall not misrepresent the honorable Senator 
in a single particular. He was liberal and gen- 
erous to a certain extent; but yet I think (although 
I will not attribute to him any design to be so) 
he was not quite fair in the presentation of the 
case of Lieutenant Maury. Other Senators rose 
in confirmation of the sentiment of the honora- 
ble Senator from Florida. My honorable friend 
from Florida forbore to use those instruments of 
dissection which are most revolting to the feel- 
ings, in chirurgical operations. It remained for my 
honorable friend from Delaware to announce,' as 
he did by implication in his late speech, that my 
friend from Florida had been quite too merciful, 
too tender, too delicate; he was a young chirur- 
geon. He warned Lieutenant Maury and his 
friends, that he had not yet been subjected to the 
severest operation which his case required. Al^ 
though he concurred with the honorable Senator 
from Florida in all that he had said in relation to 
Lieutenant Maury, yet he had left his work un- 
finished. The honorable Senator did not say this 
in terms ; but such , I think , is the fair interpretation 
of his remarks. His purpose was to show that 
Lieutenant Maury had no claim on the public 
sympathy; that he had no just ground of com- 
plaint against the proceedings of the naval board, 
or of appeal to the justice of his country, to be 
restored to his original rank in the Navy. His 
friend from Florida had been too lenient to Lieu- 
tenant Maury. He proposed to bind him down 
upon the dissecting board, and to exhibit his case 
in such a light as to demonstrate that he had no 
pretense for complaint against the decree which 
had been pronounced against him. It is because I 
feel bound to make these declarations that 1 regret 
exceedingly the absence of my friend from Dela- 
ware, [Mr. Clayton.] I say this in all sincerity, 
without any feelings against him personally. 

Mr. President, it is obvious to me that it has 
been supposed by those who propose to vindicate 
the course of the naval board, and its findings 
throughout, that it was necessary for them not 
only to show that the board was justified in its 
course towards Lieutenant Maury, but that his 
was a case which admitted of no question. What 
were the grounds, Mr. President, assumed by 
the Senator from Delaware to justify the finding 
of the board in the case of Lieutenant Maury ? 
First, physical disability. Now let us review 
very briefly the evidence adduced to support that 
position. 



5 



The honorable Senator from Florida had al- 
luded to the trial in Ohio in the suit instituted by- 
Lieutenant Maury against the stage-coach pro- 
prietors to recover damages for the severe injury- 
he had received by the mismanagement of their 
agents; but the honorable Senator from Dela- 
ware went into a minute detail of the circum- 
stances of that trial; and he showed, so far as the 
charge of the judge in recapitulating the evidence 
in the cause could show it, that Lieutenant Maury 
received such injuries that he was thereby perma- 
nently disabled, and could never hope to recover 
so far as to be able to perform his duties efficiently 
■at sea. He read the charge of the judge, setting 
forth the dislocation of the knee, the rupture of 
the ligaments of the patella, the splitting of the 
knee-pan, and the fracture of the .thigh-bone — all 
for the purpose of showing that here was a case 
where it was unreasonable to suppose that Lieu- 
tenant Maury could ever be restored to a condi- 
tion which would fit him for sea service. 

The honorable Senator, after 'referring to the 
opinion of the surgeon and physician, expressed 
on the trial, that the injuries Lieutenant Maury 
iiad received would produce a permanent disabil- 
ity, proceeded to say, that these injuries were 
received sixteen years ago; and that, according to 
the theory and observations of physiologists, a 
disability or infirmity incurred from such causes 
must necessarily increase with age; and hence 
he would have us infer that, at the time of the 
finding of the board, Lieutenant Maury's disa- 
bility, or physical infirmities, must have been 
increased instead of diminished, and that the 
naval board, had no alternative but to place him 
on the leave-of-absence list. 

Such was the first ground assumed by the Sena- 
tor from Delaware, and such the facts and infer- 
ences by which he attempted to sustain it, in 
order to justify the finding of the board. 

Now, sir, let us look a little more closely into 
the true state of the facts and circumstances con- 
nected with the alleged disability of Lieutenant 
Maury. The physicians and surgeons, in 1840, 
did certify, and not only certified, but confirmed 
their statements by the solemnity of an oath, that, 
in their opinion, Lieutenant Maury was perma- 
nently disabled by the injuries he had received. 
That -was sixteen years ago. What are the facts 
which have been developed since that time, in 
the ph ysical condition of Lieutenant Maury ? We 
find that although, for seventy days after he had 
received the injuries in question, he was not in 
a condition to be removed from one place to an- 
other, and his physicians firmly believed that he 
would never so far recover as to be able to walk 
without the aid of two crutches, and so advised 
him; yet, in 1841, we find that he thought him- 
self competent to perform the lighter duties of a 
lieutenant at sea. In a few years afterwards 
he had so far recovered that he could walk, with 
the use of a cane, without any crutch — and for 
•several years, of late, a cane is not indispens- 
able to him. At the commencement of the war 
with Mexico, he felt himself to be wholly com- 
petent to perform the duties of his office at sea, 
and applied for sea service -accordingly. The 
finding of the board was in 1855; and the question 



was as to Lieutenant Maury's physical disabil- 
ity at that time — not in 1840. 

The honorable Senator from Delaware seems 
to have proceeded on the ground that, inasmuch 
as the physicians and surgeons in 1840 expressed 
the opinion that Lieutenant Maury was per- 
manently disabled, and could never get off his 
crutches, he is estopped now from denying that 
he is disabled. Sir, the question is not whether 
Lieutenant Maury was disabled in 1840, 1841, 
1842, 1843, or even in 1844; but whether he was 
laboring under such disability in 1855 as dis- 
qualified him for the efficient performance of his 
duties. 

The naval board is required by law to make 
a "careful examination" into the qualifications of 
officers for efficient service in 1855 — not at any 
anterior period. 

I think that even those gentlemen who have 
sought to justify the board in its finding in this 
case, on the ground of physical disability, will, 
when they come to analyze and criticise all the 
arguments and facts which have been adduced, 
perceive that they have failed to establish their 
position. [Adjourned on motion of Mr. Mal- 

LORY.] 

Tuesday, Jlpril 29, 1856. 
Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. Mr. President, I 
regret exceedingly to have to trespass further on 
the attention of the Senate, but I feel it my duty 
to make some further remarks in reply to the 
honorable Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Clay- 
ton,] and also to some of those of the honorable 
Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mallory.] 

Although it might seem that the discussions 
which have been had on this subject, and the re- 
marks of the honorable Senators, could not, under 
ordinary circumstances, affect the character of 
Lieutenant Maury, yet so persistent and so erro- 
neous have been their asseverations and statements 
in relation to his case, that I believe it is important 
that a full statement of the facts connected with 
the charge against him should be made. 

I do not propose to recapitulate what I said 

yesterday except so far as to notice the first 

ground assumed by the honorable Senators from 

Florida and Delaware, as a justification of the 

board in retiring Lieutenant Maury — his alleged 

incapacity to perform efficient sea service. We 

know, Mr. President, from the correspondence 

j which has taken place between Lieutenant Maury 

1 and the members of the board, that one of their 

! number based his course in relation to Lieutenant 

! Maury upon the evidence adduced, and the find- 

j ing of the jury, in tire cause instituted by him in 

\ the Ohio circuit court. How far it may have 

i influenced the other members of the board we 

J have no knowledge. In fact, the object of the 

investigation which Lieutenant Maury seeks by 

I his memorial is that the true ground upon which 

1 he was removed from the active list and put out 

of the line of promotion may be made known. 

As to the temporary disability of Lieutenant 
I Maury, nobody has ever denied it. He ni 
denied it. himself. All the facta stated by theSen- 
I ator from Delaware, and upon which he rested 



6 



the cale, so far as the physical disability of Lieu- 
tenant Maury was relied upon, were confined to 
the period during which Lieutenant Maury and 
all his friends admit his disability, either partial 
or absolute. That period may be said to have 
extended from 1839 to 1844. The question is not, 
what was the condition of Lieutenant Maury in 
those years, but what was his condition in 1855, 
when he was retired ? The question was, whether, 
in 1855, Lieutenant Maury was capable or inca- 
pable of performing efficiently his duties at sea, 
as well as ashore? The question was not, what 
were the opinions of physicians and surgeons as 
to his capability for such service twelve or fifteen 
years ago; but what opinions they would have 
pronounced in 1855? Reasonable efficiency and 
promptness is all that is required of officers gen- 
erally. As to the greatest efficiency, thathas never 
been made a question, and could not properly and 
rationally be made one. 

But the honorable Senator from Delaware, 
instead of marching up and grappling with what 
was the real question before the board in 1855, 
contented himself by stating Lieutenant Maury's 
condition as it was prior to 1844, and evaded any 
notice whatever of the omission of the board to 
examine, as was their duty, into the physical 
ability of Lieutenant Maury in 1855, though 
Lieutenant Maury and half a dozen naval sur- 
geons were in the city while the board was in 
session. 

To supply this manifest deficiency in the chain 
of evidence required to make out a case of disa- 
bility in 1855, the honorable Senator thought it 
sufficient to advance the theory, that the infirmity 
or disability produced by the injuries received 
in 1839 would necessarily be increased by age. 
Well, sir, why was no examination instituted to 
verify this theory in its application to the case 
of Lieutenant Maury? Why, sir, Lieutenant 
Maury had not attained the age of fifty years. 
He is yet m the very prime of life, and no symp- 
toms remain of his former disability, except that 
he limps slightly. 

The honorable Senator from Florida, as well 
as the Senator from Delaware, appear to have 
convinced themselves that it would not do to rest 
the vindication of the board upon the ground of 
the disability, however complete, under which 
Lieutenant Maury labored some twelve or fifteen 
years ago. And what next did they do to fortify 
that position, not being able to stand on that 
i'lone? Why, sir, desuetude — nonuser of profes- 
sional exercises — to use technical terms. Lieuten- 
amMauryhas notbeen to sea, says the honorable 
(Senator from Florida, for sixteen years. In order 
to make that statement exactly correct, he had to 
include the interval from the time of the finding 
of the board, in 1855, and the 4th or 6th of Jan- 
uary, 1856. My friend from Delaware stated that 
it was twenty-one years since Lieutenant Maury 
had his "jacket wet " on board a man of war. 

Admit the fact as stated, that Lieutenant 
Maury had performed no sea service for a period 
of sixteen years, he has been employed during 
fourteen years out of the sixteen under the au- 
thority and orders of the Navy Department, and 
most usefully and honorably for the benefit of 



the country, but that is neither here nor there. 
The question, they say, is efficiency; and he has 
been so long absent from sea, that he carmot be 
presumed to be capable of performing sea duty 
efficiently, should he be ordered on such service. 
That is the argument. 

How does that argument consist with the find- 
ings of the board in relation to several other offi- 
cers of the Navy, many of whom have been con- 
tinued on the active list who have performed less 
sea duty, in proportion to their whole term of 
service, than Lieutenant Maury, and one of 
whom who entered the service about the same 
time, and did less sea duty, has been actually 
promoted over his head. But, says my friend 
from Delaware, Lieutenant Maury has performed 
no service on board a man of war, for twenty-one 
years past; and how is this made to appear? 
The statement contradicts the Register which I 
i have before me. Why, says the honorable Sen- 
ator, Lieutenant Maury was employed, during a 
portion of the time for which he has credit for 
j doing sea service, on board a schooner in the 
j revenue service. How the honorable Senator 
from Delaware got his information on this point 
1 1 do not know. It is not usual for him to be 
mistaken so greatly in point of fact. I amauthor- 
i ized by Lieutenant Maury to say, that he never 
! was a day in the revenue service; he never served 
j on board a schooner belonging to the revenue 
service, nor has he ever been in any service except 
the naval service of the United States. During 
I a small part of his nine years and eight months 
j service at sea, and before he was placed on special 
' service at Washington, he was employed in sur- 
| veying duties on board a vessel belonging to the 
[naval service. 

But it seems that the honorable Senator from 

j Delaware does not consider such employment 

l at sea as proper to be set down to the account of 

! professional experience in the case of Lieutenant 

! Maury. If that be the true sense of the subject, 

J then one of the officers of the Navy, who has been 

j named by the Senator from Delaware apparently 

I by way of invidious comparison with Lieutenant 

I Maury, had had no practice in the proper duties of 

j his office at sea for a period of twenty-four years 

before the sitting of the board in 1855; and if the 

i time he was employed in surveying duties is 

! not to be considered as evidence of his efficiency 

j for sea duty of a different description, he could 

not claim to possess even as high qualifications 

as Lieutenant Maury; yet he was retained on the 

j active list by the finding of the board. Then it 

I is manifest that the honorable Senators from 

; Florida and Delaware are groping in the dark, 

; when they suppose that they have discovered the 

| true grounds on which the board proceeded in 

I retiring Lieutenant Maury. It is scarcely credi- 

j ble that the board could have supposed that such 

I a man as Lieutenant Maury could have lost the 

knowledge of his profession acquired in nearly 

ten years of active service at sea, whatever may * 

have been the interval between the date of his 

last service at sea and the finding of the board; 

but if he was retired upon that ground, then I 

should like to be informed upon what ground the 

board can be vindicated from the charge of par- 



tiality and favoritism in adopting one rule of 
decision in his case, and a different one in respect 
to others ? 

But it is clear, from the course of the argument 
of the honorable Senators, that they have not felt 
any confidence in the sufficiency of either of the 
causes they have assigned to justify the finding 
of flhe board in the case of Lieutenant Maury — 
the disability proved to have existed sixteen years 
ago, and his long absence from sea service under 
the orders of the Department. They appear, how- 
ever, to have supposed that, by combining the 
two together, and bringingin other circumstances, 
they might eke out some sort of defense; but not 
feeling the fullest assurance upon that point, they 
then come forward with another charge. They 
say that Lieutenant Maury has shunned sea 
service; that he had selected service on shore, 
and has turned his back on the sea. This charge 
was made by my friend from Florida on the day 
Lieutenant Maury's memorial was presented to 
the Senate. The statement was, that Lieutenant 
Maury had been relieved from orders to sea, on 
his own application, first in 1837, again in 1838, 
in 1840, and in 1841; but the Senator gave no ex- 
planation of the attendant circumstances. 

My friend from Florida took me by surprise 
in making this statement. I was not able to an- 
swer a charge so seriously affecting Lieutenant 
Maury's standing. I had not been advised by 
him, nor had he ever dreamed, that he was obnox- 
ious to any such imputation as that of having 
shunned the performance of sea service; and it so 
happened, on a subsequent day, when this charge 
was repeated by the Senator from Florida, and 
when I was fully prepared to have refuted suc- 
cessfully any inference from the facts stated s by 
the Senator from Florida, inconsistent with the 
most perfect devotion of Lieutenant Maury to 
the duties of his profession, that I did not get the 
floor. 

Now, sir, what is the true state of the facts 
upon which my friend from Florida was led to a 
conclusion so disreputable to the professional 
standing of Lieutenant Maury ? In 1837 he .did 
apply for a furlough to attend some private busi- 
ness, and by the Department it was readily con- 
ceded to him; but at the end of three months, or 
a little more, from the receipt of this furlough, he 
applied for active service, and was thereupon 
attached to the exploring expedition then being 
fitted out under the command of Commodore 
Jones. Lieutenant Maury was then, I believe, 
the junior lieutenant of the Navy, and a position 
was assigned him inferior only to that of the com- 
mand — that of astronomer and hydrographer . In 
1838 Commodore Jones was detached from the 
command of that expedition, and Lieutenant 
Wilkes was put in charge of it. 

Lieutenant Wilkes, it was understood, wished 
to reorganize the expedition; and Lieutenant 
Maury, with a highly proper sense of delicacy, 
asked to be detached from that service; but on 
the very day that he was relieved from service in 
that expedition, he applied for orders to sea; and 
to show that I am not miitaken I will read his 
letter to the Department in which he made this 
request: 



Lieutenant Maury to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Jone 9, 1838. 

Sir : I acknowledge the receipt of yours of yesterday, by 
Which I am relieved from all duty connected with the ex- 
ploring expedition. 

Be pleased to consider me an applicant for active service. 

I would prefer duty connected with hydrographical sur- 
veys. 

If the Department have no such duty to assign, I request 
orders to sea. 

Respectfully yours, &c., M. P. MAURY. 

Well, sir, Lieutenant Maury was thereupon 
assigned to the duty of making surveys of south- 
ern harbors. This is the answer to the charge 
that Lieutenant Maury turned his back upon the 
sea in 1838. 

It is urged that Lieutenant Maury was relieved 
from orders to sea again in 1840. The charge is 
true; but how unjust to make such a charge with- 
out any explanation of the circumstances under 
which he was so relieved. But a few months pre- 
viously Lieutenant Maury had received those se- 
vere injuries which have been so much commented 
upon. He had so far recovered as to be able to 
accomplish his journey to New York, where the 
vessel was fitting out which he was ordered to 
join, but having to be carried on a litter from 
Ohio across the Alleghany mountains in the dead 
of winter, the vessel had sailedjaefore his arrival, 
and he could then only walk with the aid of two 
crutches. 

In 1841, Lieutenant Maury flattered himself 
that he was able to perform sea duty, but fearing 
that the intervention of his family and friends 
might defeat his application, went from his resi- 
dence at Fredericksburg, in Virginia, to Rich- 
mond, and addressed a letter to the Department 
from that point, a copy of which, with the leave 
of the Senate, I will read: 

Lieutenant Maury to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Richmond, (Virginia,) June 10, 1841. 

Sir : Notwithstanding my crippled condition, I think I 
should be able to perform any of the lighter dutius at sea, 
which do not call for much bodily exercise, as of flag lieu- 
tenant, for instance, to which office in the Pacific squad- 
ron Commodore T. Ap C. Jones has signified a desire that 
I should be appointed. 

That duty, or any other elsewhere, to which I am able, 
and with which the Department may see fit to intrust me, 
shall be undertaken with pleasure. 
Respectfully, &c. 

The Secretary of the Navy promptly responded 
to the application of Lieutenant Maury in this 
letter, by ordering him on the service he desired; 
but Judge Lomax, a distinguished ornament of 
the bench of Virginia, together with three of the 
most eminent physicians of Fredericksburg, hear- 
ing from some source that Lieutenant Maury had 
made application for sea service, without his 
knowledge addressed the Department a letter, 
remonstrating in strong terms against the pro- 
priety of yielding to Lieutenant Maury's appli- 
cation. I have a copy of that letter in my hands, 
which, together with the correspondence which 
ensued between the Secretary of the Navy and 
Lieutenant Maury, which I propose to read: 
Judge Lomax to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Fredericksburg, Novemher 11, 1841. 

Dear Sir: I, with other friends of our worthy townsman, 
Lieutenant M. F. Maury, feel much apprehension of per- 
manent, if not fatal evils, which he may possibly suffer if 
his zeal for the service should be indulged by the Navy 



8 



Department in ordering him to join the Pacific squadron 
which is shortly to sail. We, who see and know the bodily 
infirmity which he is still suffering, from a severe fracture 
of his thigh, about two or three years ago, believe that he is 
utterly incompetent to any duty requiring any considerable 
bodily exertion, and such will doubtless be his duty in the 
contemplated cruise. I inclose to you a certificate of the 
best physicians in this place in regard to Lieutenant Maury's 
condition. Lieutenant Maury has no idea of this officious 
voluntary interference I am now making in his concerns ; 
and it is extremely probable that, if it were known to him, 
it would receive his utter disapprobation, as tending to con- 
travene his own wishes and to disappoint his zeal for the 
performance of his public duty. I have taken the liberty 
to bring this subject to your notice, in order that I may save 
a friend from dangers that may prove most calamitous to 
himself and family, and to preserve to the country the ser- 
vices, in some other station or upon some other occasion, 
of a most valuable officer. 

I would be glad, if convenient, that some communication 
could be had about this matter with Commodore Thomas 
Ap Catesby Jones. 

Respectfully, &c, &c. 

The Fredericksburg Physicians. 
We, the undersigned, having learned that Lieutenant M. 
F. Maury has been ordered to join the Pacific squadron, 
beg leave respectfully to state to the Secretary of the Navy 
that the service contemplated would, in our opinions, exert 
a most unfriendly, and, probably, a permanent, influence 
on his health and usefulness. 

The injury which Lieutenant Maury some time since 
sustained still renders it necessary that he should avoid 
violent exercise and exposure to a variable climate. Of 
consequence the hardships incident to a protracted voyage 
in his professional capacity, and especially during the ap- J 
pi'oaching season, would involve great hazard of inflicting 
lasting disability, and mar the beneficial effects which time 
and attention are operating in his favor. 

We do not, therefore, hesitate to express the opinion, that 
regard for the welfare of Lieutenant Maury, and to his 
future value to the Navy, alike indicate the propriety of his 
avoiding sea-service for the ensuing winter. 

It may be proper to add that this statement is made with- 
out the knowledge of Lieutenant Maury, who we know 
would not shrink from any duty he might be required to 
perform, and whose zeal in the service would prompt him 
to encounter greater exertions than prudence would sanc- 
tion. 

WILLIAM BROWNE, M. D., 
GEORGE F. CARMICHAEL, M. D., 
B. R. WELLFORD, M. D. 



Secretary of the Navy to Lieutenant Maury. 

November 15, 1841. 
Sir: The accompanying letter from Judge Lomax, and 
certificate of Drs. Brown, Carmichael, and Wellford, are 
inclosed to you, with the request that you will make known 
to the Department your own wishes upon the subject. 
Respectfully, &c, &c, A. P. UPSHUR. 

Lieutenant Maury to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Fredericksburg, (Va.,) November 18, 1841. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, and its 
inclosures herewith returned, I beg leave to say, that the 
opinion expressed by my friends, Drs. Brown, Carmichael, 
and Wellford, induces me to violate a rule of my own, by 
asking to be relieved from orders to sea. 
Respectfully, &c, &c. 

Secretary of the Navy to Lieutenant Maury. 

Navy Department, November 22, 1841. 

Sir: In consideration of the representation made by Drs. 
Brown, Carmichael. and Wellford, as to the state of your 
health, and agreeably to your request of the 18th instant, you 
are hereby relieved from your orders to the frigate United 
States. 

Respectfully, &c, &.c, A. P. UPSHUR. 

The close of this correspondence shows, indeed, 
that Lieutenant Maury was relieved'from orders 
to sea at his own request in 1841, as charged 



against him; but who can pretend that he thereby 
furnished any evidence of a disposition to turn 
his back upon the sea? It appears, then, from 
the explanations I have given, that in a period of 
thirty-one years, since Lieutenant Maury entered 
the naval service, he has been relieved from sea 
duty, for his own personal convenience, only for 
a little upwards of three months. 

But my friend from Florida, as a further proof 
that Lieutenant Maury had shunned sea service, 
asserted that he had sought the position which 
he now occupies at the Observatory. Lieutenant 
| Maury, seeing this statement in the reported 
remarks of my friend from Florida, complained 
of the injustice done him, and addressed him a 
letter, explaining that his application to the De- 
partment in 1842 was to be considered as an appli- 
cation to be placed in the charge of the Bureau of 
Hydrography, which w_as proposed to be estab- 
lished by a bill then pending in Congress, should 
it become a law; but that the proposed measure 
had failed to receive the sanction of Congress. 
When the Senator from Florida afterwards had 
the floor on this subject, he sent thisjetter to the 
Clerk's table, to be read to the Senate. He accom- 
panied it with the remark that he sent it " to the 
Chair to be read for what it is worth;" which I 
do not think comported with the kindness and 
courtesy which usually marks the course of the 
Senator. 

Mr. MALLORY. I made the remark after- 
wards in what I said on the subject. 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. I remember the 
remark, but I cannot say what was the precise 
time it was made. I do not mean, however, to 
be discourteous or offensive to the honorable Sen- 
ator in noticing this remark. My object is merely 
to do justice to Lieutenant Maury. The honor- 
able Senator, in the course of his remarks on that 
occasion, reiterated his former statement that 
Lieutenant Maury had applied to be relieved from 
sea duty in 1837, in 1838, in 1840, and again in 
1841, without any explanation of the attendant 
circumstances; and he added that " he took it for 
granted that that statement was correct, as it had 
not been denied." 1 have it from Lieutenant 
Maury, that when he complained to the Senator 
from Florida of the injustice done him in stating 
that he had sought his present employment, al- 
though he knew that there were circumstances 
attending the several applications to be relieved 
from orders to sea, charged by the honorable Sen- 
ator, which would relieve him from all censure, 
yet he was not sure that the evidence of those 
circumstances was to be found on the files of the 
Department; and he was not willing to deny the 
statements, of the honorable Senator, or to offer 
explanations, on his personal authority simply. 
He was unwilling to risk his word against that of 
the Senator from Florida, who, he supposed, had 
obtained all the information there was in the De- 
partment upon the subject. I have no doubt that 
the Senator did place before the Senate all that the 
Department furnished him with on this point. 

Mr. MALLORY. Will my friend from Ten- 
nessee permit me to say a word in this connection? 
Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. Yes, sir. 
Mr. MALLORY I hold that when a Senator 



9 



on the floor makes an error in a statement to 
which' an individual may deem that he has a 
proper exception, it is his (the Senator's) duty, 
and he will spontaneously do justice whenever he 
finds that he has committed an error. When 
Lieutenant Maury brought to my attention the 
fact that he never applied for the position which 
he now occupies, he admitted at the same time 
that he had applied for employment at the head 
of the Bureau of Hydrography, which was then 
about being established. The Bureau of Hydro- 
graphy was subsequently merged in the Bureau of 
Yards and Docks; and the law placed a post-cap- 
tain at the head of it, which excluded Mr. Maury 
entirely. He subsequently received his position 
at the head of the depot of charts and instruments, 
which has grown up into the present Observatory. 

When Mr. Maury made this statement to me, 
I requested him to put it in writing, lest I might, 
in submitting any explanation in his behalf, com- 
mit some slight error which would not do him 
justice. With the understanding that whatever 
he did put in writing I would most cheerfully 
communicate, he reduced his statement to writing, 
and it was presented by me in order to do him 
justice. I remarked at the time, that I did not 
see that the letter materially altered the statement 
which I had before made, because the gist of the 
statement was that he had applied for shore duty. 
He admitted that he had done so, as I understood ; 
but instead of the shore duty being at the Observ- 
atory, as I before stated, it was at the Hydro- 
fraphical Bureau. This was all the correction; 
had no other papers before me — no other state- 
ment to correct. 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. I do not charge the 
honorable Senator with seeking to do any inten- 
tional injustice to Lieutenant Maury. He was 
very zealous in vindicating the board, and main- 
tained strongly that they were justified in retiring 
him; and among other grounds assigned by the 
honorable Senator in justification of that finding, 
he undertook to prove that Lieutenant Maury 
had avoided sea service, and sought his present 
employment. That is the point of difference 
between my friend from Florida and myself. 
Lieutenant Maury did seek employment ashore 
in 1842, when his friends did not consider him 
able to perform sea service. His application 
failed, for the reason already stated; but a few 
months afterwards he was put in charge of the 
old depot of charts and instruments — not upon his 
own application, but on the recommendation of 
brother officers. 

But, sir, the material point is, that Lieutenant 
Maury never shrank from sea duty. Neither my 
friend from Florida, nor my friend from Dela- 
ware, in all that they have said, ever did Lieu- 
tenant Maury the justice to admit, or notice the 
fact, that he had applied for orders to sea during 
the Mexican war, although I had previously 
brought that fact to the notice of the Senate. ■ 

Mr. MALLORY. When was the last appli- 
cation? 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. During the Mexi- 
can war. i 

Mr. MALLORY. When was the last before 
that? 



Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. In 1841. 

Mr. MALLORY. In order that the record may 
be kept correctly, I will remark here that I un- 
derstand the matter as the honorable Senator 
does — that Mr. Maury's application for sea ser- 
vice was made in 1841, and subsequently in the 
Mexican war. When I made the statement in 
relation to Lieutenant Maury's applications to 
be relieved from sea service, they were not spon- 
taneously produced by me, but were responses, 
on my part, to allegations made on the floor of the 
Senate by Mr. Maury's friends, who said that 
he had never declined sea service. I knew that 
this statement was erroneous. I knew that the 
Senators who made the statement had not inves- 
tigated the matter as I had. I responded to prove 
that fact. I brought it forward in reply to the 
allegations that he had never declined sea service; 
and I think I sustained my view thoroughly. In 
relation to his application for sea service during 
the Mexican war, I knew nothing about it; but, 
if I had thought of it at all, I should have known 
that he did apply because it is a standing rule and 
usage, that every member of both the military 
professions of the country is a volunteer in case 
of war. 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. I must say to my 
friend, that 1 do not think he has sustained his 
position that Lieutenant Maury shunned duty at 
sea. When the circumstances are fully consid- 
ered, it will be found that, on his own application, 
and for his personal convenience, he was not 
relieved except in 1837, when he asked for a fur- 
lough; and at the end of three months he applied 
for sea service, and got it. 

Mr. MALLORY. He applied for a year's 
furlough then. 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. That may be; but 
he relinquished it after three months and a few 
days, applied for orders to sea, and got them. 
Out of thirty -one years' service, three months' 
absence from sea duty is all that can be fairly 
charged against him. 

I said yesterday that Lieutenant Maury's posi- 
tion in relation to this question is such as very 
naturally led to extraordinary efforts on the part 
of the friends of the board to show that he had 
no just complaint against its finding. His case 
attracted public attention from the first promulga- 
tion of the proceedings of the board. His retire- 
ment was as astonishing to the country as to 
himself. It was almost universally a matter of 
general regret as well as of astonishment, that an 
officer of so much distinction at home and abroad 
should have been disrated, and put out of the line 
of promotion by the action of the naval board. 
Hence it was, that after the honorable Senators 
had pressed every consideration that could be 
thought of to maintain the ground that Lieuten- 
ant Maury was incompetent, physically, as well 
as from desuetude, to perform efficient sea ser- 
vice, after having attempted to show that he had 
turned his back upon the sea and sought employ- 
ment ashore, my friend from Delaware, distrust- 
ing, it would seem, the strength of all these 
positions, resorted to an argument which my 
friend from Florida declined to employ. The 
Senator from Delaware urged, after reading the 



10 



repoi-t of the trial of the cause in Ohio, that of 
the two thousand three hundred and twenty-five 
dollars awarded in damages to Lieutenant Maury 
by the jury, at least two thousand dollars must 
have been awarded to him in consideration of the 
permanent disability established by the evidence. 
The remaining three hundred and twenty-five 
dollars, he supposed, might have been awarded 
to pay for his loss of time and medical expendi- 
tures. The argument is, that Lieuteuant Maury 
has no ground of complaint against the finding 
of the naval board, or to claim any redress from 
his country against that finding, because he has 
already been compensated for the loss of his pro- 
fessional prospects by the damages awarded for 
his broken leg. 

Sir, to say nothing of the absurdity of the idea, 
that $2,000 would be regarded as a remuneration 
for a permanent disability inflicted upon a naval 
officer of such brilliant promise, and then only 
thirty-one years of age, how does the honorable 
Senator know that any part of the amount found 
by the jury was in consideration of the disability 
alleged to .have been proved on the trial? My 
friend from Delaware is a lawyer, and a distin- 
guished one; and I would ask him, how does he 
know, or could he know, unless the verdict was 
special, that the jury allowed nothing for the pro- 
tracted sufferings of Lieutenant Maury? or will 
he deny that the jury, in making up their verdict, 
ought to have made no allowance for the disloca- 
tion of the knee, the rending of tendons and lig- 
aments, and the fracture of bones? 

The honorable Senator was not content to drop 
this extraordinary and (he must allow me to say) 
most illiberal course of argument at this point. 
But after reciting the judge's charge to the jury- 
on the trial in Ohio, from which it appeared that 
a medical bill of about two hundred and fifty 
dollars had been proved in the cause, he pro- 
ceeded to read a paper furnished from the Navy 
Department, as early as the 8th of January, and 
before Lieutenant Maury had presented his me- 
morial, in which it was stated that Lieutenant 
Maury had been allowed, in the settlement of his 
account, $297 for expenditures incurred " in 
mending leg," to use the phraseology of the of- 
ficial statement; and from these facts the honor- 
able Senator left it to be inferred that Lieutenant 
Maury had been twice paid for expenditures in- 
curred by him on account of medical attendance 
— once by the Ohio jury, and again by the Navy 
Department. The object of the honorable Sen- 
ator in bringing these facts to the notice of the 
Senate cannot be mistaken. Now, sir, we know, 
from what had before been stated, connected with 
the time (1840) and other circumstances con- 
nected with the trial of the cause in Ohio, that 
Lieutenant Maury could not have been present 
at it; and I am authorized by him to state that he 
had never seen or examined the report of that 
trial, until after he was informed of the finding 
of the naval board, when his attention was first 
called to it by the suggestion of a friend, that the 
suit he had instituted for damages for the inju- 
ries he had received might have had something 
to do with that finding. But, sir, how can the 
honorable Senator know that the jury included 



any allowance for medical expenditures in their 
finding, or how can any man know that fact, 
except the jurors themselves ? 

For very obvious and cogent reasons ,_it maybe 
inferred that no such thing was done. Lawyers 
of the first distinction and skill were-of counsel 
for the defendants in that cause, and they must 
be presumed to have known something of the 
laws and regulations which prescribe the rights 
of naval officers in such cases, and by which Lieu- 
tenant Maury was as fairly and legally entitled 
to be repaid his reasonable expenditure for med- 
ical attendance, while acting in obedience to orders, 
as to his regular pay as an officer; and they must 
be fairly presumed to have urged that argument to 
the jury. If they were ignorant of those regula- 
tions, and did not acquaint themselves with them 
before the trial came on, they were not entitled to 
the reputation which they sustained as learned 
and skillful lawyers. But if the fact could be 
established that the jury did actually include the 
medical account exhibited on the trial, that would 
not preclude Lieutenant Maury from demanding 
what he was by law entitled to receive from the 
Government on the same account. It was, -to 
every intent, a legal and subsisting claim against 
the Government; and he might justly and with 
honor receive it, though he had been informed 
that the jury had allowed the same claim in making 
up their verdict — which, by-the-by, he did not, 
and could not, know. 

The honorable Senator from Delaware also 
thought it his duty still further to enlighten the 
Senate and the country, by holding up to their 
notice the fact, that Lieutenant Maury had, in 
1840, applied for and been allowed a pension of 
$ 150, in consideration of the injuries he had re- 
ceived. This claim stands precisely upon the 
same ground of right with the allowance of the 
medical charges to which he had been subjected. 
The law allowed him both; and he had the same 
right to demand both that Senators have to their 
traveling and per diem pay. It is proper to state, 
however, that the pension ceased many years 
since. Mr. President, I do not know how such 
statements and arguments arrayed against Lieu- 
tenant Maury strike other Senators; but it does 
seem to me that if he had been a criminal arraigned 
at the bar of a court of justice, he could not have 
been treated with more illiberality and harshness 
than he has been. 

My honorable friend from Delaware disavowed 
— I have no doubt candidly — any intention to 
attack Lieutenant Maury's personal honor and 
integrity; but nevertheless the drift of his argu- 
ment, and his array of circumstances, and the 
inferences which might be drawn from them, if 
unanswered or unexplained, were calculated to 
leave the impression on the public mind that 
Lieutenant Maury has been guilty of some sort 
of moral obliquity; or that, by some means or 
other, he had managed to thrust his hand into 
the public Treasury, and draw money from it to 
which he was not fairly and honorably entitled. 
The policy of resorting to such arguments would 
seem to be to supply the defects and inadequacy 
of all the other more legitimate grounds which 
have been assumed in justification of the finding 



11 



of the naval board, and to present a sort of con- 
glomerated testimony which would make its 
defense complete. 

The honorable Senator from Delaware arrayed 
another, but kindred, class of facts connected with 
the present employment of Lieutenant Maury, 
which he supposed would have an important 
bearing upon the decision to which the public 
ought to come in relation to the action of the 
board in his case. The Senator read, from the 
same official paper to which I have before alluded, 
that Lieutenant Maury receives $3,000 per annum 
salary, as superintendent of the Observatory, 
whpn his " pay proper" is $1,500 — that he' has 
besides, a house free of rent, a vegetable garden 
attached, and a public one-horse carry-all, in 
which his family occasionally ride about the city; 
and the Senator estimates the- salary and these 
allowances as equivalent to an annual compensa- 
tion of $5,000. The Senator from Florida esti- 
mated it at $4,500. I will not enter into an 
examination of the correctness of their estimates. 
The house he occupies, and the kitchen garden 
attached, and especially if the use of the carry-all 
be included, may be regarded by some as equiv- 
alent to two thousand dollars, but not more than 
five or seven hundred dollars, according to the 
taste or judgment of others; but whatever may 
be the true value of those allowances, I will ttnder- 
take to affirm that his whole compensation is not 
more than sufficient for a decent support of him- 
self and family. 

But, sir, suppose that Lieutenant Maury's 
compensation was $10,000 a year; what would 
that have to do with the finding of the naval 
board ? Would that be a consideration which 
ought to have had any weight in deciding upon 
his competency and efficiency as a naval officer? 
Or has it come to this, that the loss of profes- 
sional reputation and the prospect of future pro- 
motion in the Navy are to be estimated in dollars 
and cents ? 

But, sir, the compensation allowed to Lieuten- 
ant Maury, as superintendent of the Observatory, 
is spoken of by both the honorable Senators who* 
have undertaken to show that he has no just 
ground to complain of the finding of the naval 
board, as something altogether exclusive, and 
out of the usual allowances to officers of the Navy 
who occupy the principal shore stations. They 
have never thought it material to remind the 
Senate that the captains-commandants of our 
navy-yards have a salary of $3,500, with a house 
rent free, and in most cases a vegetable garden 
attached; that the allowances of superintendents 
of the naval hospitals and the Naval Academy are 
upon the same footing; nor have any thought 
proper to state that every officer of the Navy, 
when on service at sea, from the grade of mid- 
shipman to that of a commodore, besides his 
regular pay, has his quarters furnished at the 
public expense; and though he has no kitchen 
garden attached, he is allowed fuel, lights, ra- 
tions, and servants— the most expensive articles 
of living ashore— which Lieutenant Maury has 
to supply out of his own pocket. 

To listen to the speeches of my friends from 
Florida and Delaware, or to that portion of them 



which they have devoted to Lieutenant Maury, 
one who is not familiar with the provisions of the 
late law, or who has not considered the effect of 
the proceedings of the naval board, would sup- 
pose that Lieutenant Maury is left in the enjoy- 
ment of his position as superintendent of the 
Observatory, and of the emoluments attached to 
it, by the liberality of that board. But, sir, the 
board is entitled to no such credit; and the extent 
of their generosity towards him, distinguished as 
he is by eminent service, will be told when it is 
stated that they recommended him to be placed on 
the leave-pay list, with a salary of $1,200, with- 
out the hope of promotion or of any increased 
compensation whatever. 

Sir, Lieutenant Maury holds his present em- 
ployment by the favor and at the discretion 
of the Secretary of the Navy. He can be re- 
moved from it at any moment the Secretary or 
the President shall think proper. He is, in fact, 
'reduced, by the finding of the board, to absolute 
dependence upon executive favor for any em- 
ployment whatever under the Government. 1 
have heard the remark repeatedly made, that there 
is no danger that Lieutenant Maury will be re- 
moved from his present employment. I do not 
know that; nor can Lieutenant Maury, or any 
of his friends, feel any such security. I do not 
believe that the present Secretary of the Navy 
has any such intention; but, sir, if that excellent 
officer could be influenced by the representations 
of my friend from Delaware, he may change his 
present favorable opinion of Lieutenant Maury. 
That honorable Senator took some pains to show 
that Lieutenant Maury had assailed and charged 
the Secretary with a failure to do "his duty, and 
with ignorance of the law;" and for that purpose 
quoted from his memorial this passage: " There 
is reason to believe that some members of the 
board misconceived their duty, and took the Sec- 
retary of the Navy's regulations for instructions. 
If so, their findings under them were illegal." 

The law, it is clear, gives no authority to the 
Secretary of the Navy to instruct the board in 
their findings, but simply to regulate their pro- 
ceedings. The Secretary has never claimed the 
authority to instruct; and was it disrespectful in 
Lieutenant Maury to say that the regulations of 
the Secretary had been misconceived by the board ? 

If Lieutenant Maury had, contrary to his duty 
as an officer, shown disrespect to the Secretary 
of the Navy, there were laws and regulations by 
which he could have, and doubtless would have, 
protected the dignity of his official positiou without 
any prompting on the part of my friend from 
Delaware. But what has the question of Lieu- 
tenant Maury's course towards the Secretary to 
do with the finding of the naval board ? If he had 
been guilty of .mutiny instead of an alleged act of 
disrespect, the board could have had no cogni- 
zance of it. It was altogether an ex post facto 
affair; and I can see no motive or object in the 
remarks of my friend from Delaware, for my 
part, unless it was to incense the Secretary against 
Lieutenant Maury, or to prejudice him in the 
public mind. 

My friends from Florida and Delaware, in the 
course of their remarks on the point of Lit 



12 




tenant Maury's physical competency to do effi- 
cient service at sea, insisted that he could not 
board a ship. It may be true, that Lieutenant 
Maury's physical strength may have been slight- 
ly diminished by having his leg fractured, but 
there are degrees of efficiency in all branches of 
active service among officers dependent upon 
their relative physical constitution; and what 
Lieutenant Maury thought of his efficiency in the 
performance of all his duties he furnished the best 
evidence of by applying for service in the Mex- 
ican war. Mr. Mason was Secretary of the Navy 
at that time. He is now out of the country. 
That his successors, Messrs. Preston, Graham, 
and Kennedy, were not influenced by any opin- 
' ion of his physical disability in not ordering him 
j9 sea during their respective administrations of 
the Navy Department, 1 beg leave to read the 
copy of a letter addressed to each of them by 
Lieutenant Maury, and their replies: 

Observatory, Washington, March 26, 1856. 

Sir : Will you do me the favor to state why, when you 
were Secretary of the Navy, you did not order'me to sea? 
Was it because I did not apply? or was it because you con- 
sidered my services on shore of more value to the country 
than they would have been at sea ? 

I make this request in connection with the proceedings 
of the late naval board; and hope that in this circumstance, 
you will excuse the liberty, and oblige, 

Yours truly, M. F. MAURY. 

Hillsboro', (North Carolina,) April 7, 1856. 

Sir: I regret that my absence from home has delayed a 
reply to your letter of the 26th ultimo so long after its receipt 
by my family. 

In answer to your inquiry, why you were not ordered to 
sea during my connection with the Navy Department, I 
have to state, that [considered your services at the National 
Observatory of far more importance and value to the coun- 
try and the Navy than any that could be rendered by an offi- 
cer of your grade at sea in time of peace. Indeed, I doubt 
whether the triumphs of navigation, and of the knowledge 
of the sea, achieved under your superintendence of the Ob- 

■vatory, will not contribute as much to an effective naval 
service and to tire national fame as the brilliant trophies of 
our arms. 

I remain, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

" WILLIAM A. GRAHAM. 
Lieutenant M. F. Maury, United States Navy, <yc. 

Baltimore, March 28, 1856. 
My dear Sir : I have received yours of the 25th [26th] 
asking me to state why, when I was at the head of the 
Navy Department, I did not order you to sea. You ask 
further, was it because you did not ripply, or because I con- 
sidered your services onshore of more value to the country 
than they would have been at sea. 

I have no recollection of your having applied for sea ser- 
vice, though you may have done so, and I, after this lapse 
of time, have forgotten it. 

From' my knowledge of the nature of your scientific pur- 
suits, their usefulness to the country, and your devotion to 
■ . them, I can say that nothing but such an emergency as left 
me no alternative would have induced me to withdraw you 
. -'in your labors at the Observatory by an order to go to sea. 
My estimate of the importance of "the scientific service 
required from the officers of the Navy is sufficiently mani- 
fested in my reportto the President, in 'December, 1852, upon 
the organization of a hydrographic corps, to be charged 
especially with such duties as those to which you have ap- 
plied yourself with so much advantage to the* country and 
to your own reputation. I still hope to see that subject 
attract the attention of Congress, and, in the establishment 
jf the corps, to furnish an appropriate occasion to the Gov- 
•iiimen^to avail itself of your services under conditions 
■qually conformable to your wishes and your deserts. 
Very truly, my dear sir, yours, 

JOHN P. KENNEDY. 
Lieutenant M. F. Maury, United States Navy. 



029 714 188 



Dear Sir : Your letter ot-avna mTron™.!^!.™™^ 
my residence during my absence from home on a visit of 
several weeks, and has, therefore, remained unanswered 
thus long. I sincerely regret the delay. 

When I entered upon the duties of Secretary of the Navy 
you were at the head of the Observatory, at Washington, as 
superintendent. The post you occupied is one of the highest 
importance and interest to the naval service of the United 
States. Under an able and efficient administration of its 
duties, it has and will confer important benefits, not only 
on the Navy, but on the entire commercial interests of the 
country. It requires, however, that the superintendent 
should possess the acquirements, habits, and tastes of the 
scholar and man of science, as well as those of the officer 
and seaman. 

I found you in the office, familiar with all its details, and 
fulfilling the duties assigned you, with constantly increas- 
ing labor, enthusiasm, and success, in the midst of investi- 
gations and researches that then promised, as they have 
since conferred, great practical benefit on the service to 
which you belong, and lasting honor on the country and 
age in which you live. No imperative deVnand for sea 
service required your detachment from the Observatory; 
and on no duty, either ashore or afloat, could your services 
have been as valuable to the country, or as distinguishing 
and honorable to your profession, as that to which you 
have been so long assigned. 

With the highest consideration and regard, I am your 
most obedient servant, 

WM. BALLARD PRESTON. 
Lieutenant M. F. Maury, Washington, D. C. 

The honorable Senator from Delaware neither 
admitted nor denied that Lieutenant Maury was 
a man of science, but he seemed to think that his 
pretensions in that respect are entitled to no 
great consideration . He stated that, in the opinion 
of his fellows, there were officers in the Navy 
even his superiors in science — Wilkes, Davis, 
Goldsborough,and others, some of whom I know 
have long enjoyed the reputation of men of science; 
and the country will rejoice to learn that the Navy 
can boast many officers who are Lieutenant 
Maury's superiors in scientific attainments; and 
when those officers shall have illustrated the na- 
ture of science, in its practical application to great 
objects, more successfully, and with more benefi- 
cial results to the whole world, than he has done, 
I trust that just appreciation of their merits, and 
the good fortune which has placed them in their 
present enviable position, will continue to ad- 
vance them to still higher rank and considera- 
tion. But, though it may be true that Lieutenant 
Maury has his superior in science, does that jus- 
tify his exclusion from the active list of the Navy, 
and out of the line of promotion? Lieutenant 
Maury raises no question of superiority in 
science between him and his brother officers. He 
has never set up any such pretensions as the 
Senator from Delaware ratherinsidiously ascribed 
to him, by quoting a sentence from his memorial, 
and perverting it into a claim to be the impersona- 
tion of science. Lieutenant Maury simply claims 
the interposition of Congress to do him mere jus- 
tice according to his just deserts, though they may 
be inferior to those of other officers of the Navy. 

Sir, I think it is manifest, from the tenor of the 
remarks of the honorable Senator from Delaware 
and others, that they have no just appreciation, 
or even knowledge, of the extent and. value of 
Lieutenant Maury's public services. Look at a 
single instance. When the discovery of gold in 
California gave rise to an immediate, extensive, 
and profitable trade between the Atlantic States 



* 



MV^r 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 714 188 



n 



U_ll: ^__ 



